Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

[Im Solo]

As much as you argue the point of a verbal contract being present you can not dispute that "call my own" in not way is a substitute for

The owner will own all of its proprietary information as included in the Services, as well as all source code, object code, screens, documentation, Digital programming, operating instructions, design concepts other documentation developed for or specifically relating to the owner's information processing, all of the Owner's source documents, stored data, and other information of any kind, and reports and notes prepared by the Designer, will be "works for hire" under applicable United States copyright laws, and therefor the property of the Owner. Such work may not be used by the designer for any other purpose except for the benefit of the Owner.

I'm sorry but if you knew anything in depth about contracts you would know that Bogla saying "call my own" in no way bound all rights to him as the buyer. They never agreed that Bogla would be the exclusive owner of the code.

To further debunk, if i were to say "i want a Porsche 911 of my own" yes i own that Porsche but the dealership/manufacturer still maintains ownership of the designs etc. If i had a written agreement with Porsche that i was buying the rights to all 911 to include all copyrights then at that point only do i actually own the full product.

Contracts are often misunderstood by many which is why they are drafted by real laywers not armchair lawyers. No average keyboard warrior could actually explain this situation in full however in brief Bogla never agreed to have full rights over the product.

Could explain further if needed

 

As already explained statute of frauds doesn't apply because 1) there is written evidence of the contract it is not an oral contract for the purpose of the statue of frauds, 2) partial performance.



Correct, no oral agreement is ever drafted by a party, because an oral agreement is not a written contract and only a written contract can be drafted.

In this case it was a written contract, but not a drafted contract. It falls into the category of having some attributes of a written contract and some attributes of an oral contract. There is evidence for its existence (unlike an oral contract) and there is no premeditated draftsman (unlike a written contract).

Further, meeting of the minds in modern law is also called intention to create legal relations. They definitely had this. There is no question that either of them intended anything other than to enter into a legal pay-for-performance agreement.

I understand that these facts are inconvenient for you and that you would prefer a contract didn't exist. Never the less a contract was still made out.

Look it's not my job to teach you contracts 101. You're not even a party to this dispute.

I might add that you should read what IHQ has to say about stolen intellectual property here:
Steal whatever you want, as long as you change it to your name it's yours!

And apply it to this very case.

I benefit in no way regardless of the outcome of this case, there is no bias. I just don't believe this case was handled well. Bogla should be pursuing Quid and Quid should be pursuing IHQ.

EDIT: As much fun as it was debating law with you, you are right that this is not my dispute and I have no right chiming in with my input. Thanks for the law practice.

 

As much as you argue the point of a verbal contract being present you can not dispute that "call my own" in not way is a substitute for

The owner will own all of its proprietary information as included in the Services, as well as all source code, object code, screens, documentation, Digital programming, operating instructions, design concepts other documentation developed for or specifically relating to the owner's information processing, all of the Owner's source documents, stored data, and other information of any kind, and reports and notes prepared by the Designer, will be "works for hire" under applicable United States copyright laws, and therefor the property of the Owner. Such work may not be used by the designer for any other purpose except for the benefit of the Owner.

I'm sorry but if you knew anything in depth about contracts you would know that Bogla saying "call my own" in no way bound all rights to him as the buyer. They never agreed that Bogla would be the exclusive owner of the code.

To further debunk, if i were to say "i want a Porsche 911 of my own" yes i own that Porsche but the dealership/manufacturer still maintains ownership of the designs etc. If i had a written agreement with Porsche that i was buying the rights to all 911 to include all copyrights then at that point only do i actually own the full product.

Contracts are often misunderstood by many which is why they are drafted by real laywers not armchair lawyers. No average keyboard warrior could actually explain this situation in full however in brief Bogla never agreed to have full rights over the product.

Could explain further if needed

It's a false analogy. If you drove in your own car to a car designer and said "I want to build a car with you to call my own" and that's all you said, and a court was forced to interpret what you meant, what would they conclude?

They would look at things such as how much you actually put into the design. Were they your specifications that the car was made to? Etc. Of course the designer, being intelligent, would have a clause about retaining rights in a contract with you, but supposing they were not intelligent and did not well then it is left to the court to decide what was meant.

If you had taken any law you would know that a verbal contract can be a couple of short sentences and still be valid. Nothing in common law says a contract must be put on paper to be valid. Even the statute of frauds doesn't help when the contract was then carried out.

Further the parties have fully the option to pursue other mediation or court if they want to.

 

I benefit in no way regardless of the outcome of this case, there is no bias. I just don't believe this case was handled well. Bogla should be pursuing Quid and Quid should be pursuing IHQ.

Yes on the basis of broken contracts that is whom should be pursuing whom. But on the basis of copyright infringement if the rights belong to Bogla then he should be pursuing whomsoever is infringing.

 

[MadDev]

I benefit in no way regardless of the outcome of this case, there is no bias. I just don't believe this case was handled well. Bogla should be pursuing Quid and Quid should be pursuing IHQ.

You being involved with ScapeGold would bias your decision on the outcome though, just my two cents.

 

You being involved with ScapeGold would bias your decision on the outcome though, just my two cents.

If I really cared, I would be pursuing this debate further. I've just witnessed how RaSc hasn't been fair with punishments and I've been apart of it as well. I'm also not part of this dispute so I shouldn't be posting anyway. Have a good night @Sythe

 

[Im Solo]

It's a false analogy. If you drove in your own car to a car designer and said "I want to build a car with you to call my own" and that's all you said, and a court was forced to interpret what you meant, what would they conclude?

They would look at things such as how much you actually put into the design. Were they your specifications that the car was made to? Etc. Of course the designer, being intelligent, would have a clause about retaining rights in a contract with you, but supposing they were not intelligent and did not well then it is left to the court to decide what was meant.

If you had taken any law you would know that a verbal contract can be a couple of short sentences and still be valid. Nothing in common law says a contract must be put on paper to be valid. Even the statute of frauds doesn't help when the contract was then carried out.

Law I would say limited experience, come from a family of lawyers it sucks.... However I am well versed in Contracts specifically.

If you had taken any law you would know that a verbal contract can be a couple of short sentences and still be valid

Yes a verbal contract can and has been proven to hold up just as any contract would. However not for things as involved at this. I can't say "hey rich buddy make me a site to call my own." you "say yea sure Ian NP dog." and have that some how qualify as a contract. even if they discussed what Bogla wanted in the site exchanged ideas etc. Thats all extra bullshit. Never once did Bogla say he wanted exclusive rights, never claimed ownership over any code, back end or front end. I can't believe it myself to be honest after taking with bogla you can just tell hes a smart guy. But in my opinion i think it was either him being lazy or a lack of diligence. He at no point claimed ownership and has no claim over the code. It is not his code and any lawyer could tell you that.

You even said like two posts ago that there really wasn't a verbal agreement, there were "some aspects" of both a written and verbal. Thats just foolish, i get it Bogla is a super donor but that doesnt mean you make stuff up or make excuses for him. Bogla fucked up, he doesn't own the code and this whole report is void. If you would like to discuss privately about contracting you can contact me but i do charge an hourly rate for contracting. This isnt slander towards anyone but to say that three words give Bogla complete ownership is stupid.

 

[Im Solo]

Law I would say limited experience, come from a family of lawyers it sucks.... However I am well versed in Contracts specifically.



Yes a verbal contract can and has been proven to hold up just as any contract would. However not for things as involved at this. I can't say "hey rich buddy make me a site to call my own." you "say yea sure Ian NP dog." and have that some how qualify as a contract. even if they discussed what Bogla wanted in the site exchanged ideas etc. Thats all extra bullshit. Never once did Bogla say he wanted exclusive rights, never claimed ownership over any code, back end or front end. I can't believe it myself to be honest after taking with bogla you can just tell hes a smart guy. But in my opinion i think it was either him being lazy or a lack of diligence. He at no point claimed ownership and has no claim over the code. It is not his code and any lawyer could tell you that.

You even said like two posts ago that there really wasn't a verbal agreement, there were "some aspects" of both a written and verbal. Thats just foolish, i get it Bogla is a super donor but that doesnt mean you make stuff up or make excuses for him. Bogla fucked up, he doesn't own the code and this whole report is void. If you would like to discuss privately about contracting you can contact me but i do charge an hourly rate for contracting. This isnt slander towards anyone but to say that three words give Bogla complete ownership is stupid.

thats all im going to say, completely un bias, dont care about gold shops or any of that just want people to know this made up contract doesnt exist. Done take it as you will!

 

Yes on the basis of broken contracts that is whom should be pursuing whom. But on the basis of copyright infringement if the rights belong to Bogla then he should be pursuing whomsoever is infringing.

The issue is you are putting the final agreement for this contract on the words "I need something I can call my own", and Quid replying "yeah for sure". Neither party in this situation knew a contract was being created or agreed to a contract, so unless you find another place this happens, then meeting of the minds did not happen.

 

Law I would say limited experience, come from a family of lawyers it sucks.... However I am well versed in Contracts specifically.



Yes a verbal contract can and has been proven to hold up just as any contract would. However not for things as involved at this. I can't say "hey rich buddy make me a site to call my own." you "say yea sure Ian NP dog." and have that some how qualify as a contract. even if they discussed what Bogla wanted in the site exchanged ideas etc. Thats all extra bullshit. Never once did Bogla say he wanted exclusive rights, never claimed ownership over any code, back end or front end. I can't believe it myself to be honest after taking with bogla you can just tell hes a smart guy. But in my opinion i think it was either him being lazy or a lack of diligence. He at no point claimed ownership and has no claim over the code. It is not his code and any lawyer could tell you that.

You even said like two posts ago that there really wasn't a verbal agreement, there were "some aspects" of both a written and verbal. Thats just foolish, i get it Bogla is a super donor but that doesnt mean you make stuff up or make excuses for him. Bogla fucked up, he doesn't own the code and this whole report is void. If you would like to discuss privately about contracting you can contact me but i do charge an hourly rate for contracting. This isnt slander towards anyone but to say that three words give Bogla complete ownership is stupid.

I certainly did not decide this case on the basis of Bogla's donation status. If you review the start of the case I said repeatedly that it would come down to what was agreed between him and his developer. And @malakadang agreed.

The argument that Bogla should have known better is valid. But equally valid with respect to the developer. It's entirely beside the point. They are both at fault for failing to produce a proper written agreement.

The code that is currently running on dozens of websites due to IHQ's resale of that code is unlicensed code. They can't tell you who owns the rights to it. IHQ has been reselling this code without clear rights to do so.

It's clear that the code came from the contract between Bogla and Quid. The interpretation issue is whether the contract was for an exclusive license or not. Again malakadang and I both agree in the context of the conversation that an exclusive license was implied.

But regardless we can't sanction reselling of code without a license and clear ownership. People will be scammed for many thousands of dollars by unscrupulous resellers of stolen source code. If in doubt about the origin of code DO NOT BUY IT.

The issue is you are putting the final agreement for this contract on the words "I need something I can call my own", and Quid replying "yeah for sure". Neither party in this situation knew a contract was being created or agreed to a contract, so unless you find another place this happens, then meeting of the minds did not happen.

They definitely intended to create legal relations
Intention to be legally bound - Wikipedia

Counterintuitively, the best way of discovering whether the parties intended to contract is not to ask them, as this "subjective test" would give the rogue an easy loophole to escape liability. (He would reply, "No!"). Instead, just as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893],[5] the court applies the "objective test" and asks whether the reasonable bystander, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, thinks that the parties intended to be bound.

So here's the question: If Bogla paid Quid and Quid didn't deliver, and Bogla posted a scam report, would we ban Quid pending payment of the debt? Further if Quid delivered and Bogla didn't pay and Quid posted a scam report would we ban Bogla pending payment of the debt?

The answer in both cases is yes. It passes the objective test for intention to create legal relations.

 

So here's the question: If Bogla paid Quid and Quid didn't deliver, and Bogla posted a scam report, would we ban Quid pending payment of the debt? Further if Quid delivered and Bogla didn't pay and Quid posted a scam report would we ban Bogla pending payment of the debt?

The answer in both cases is yes. It passes the objective test for intention to create legal relations.

yes the parties could intend to be be bound and that would meet the basis of an agreement in a legal relationship, that does not imply that all rights, copyright's, re sale rights are given to Bogla. These things would have to explicitly stated and agreed upon, or else the owner, which would be Quid and whoever helped him develop the code, still has these rights, or owns the intellectual property.

 

yes the parties could intend to be be bound and that would meet the basis of an agreement in a legal relationship, that does not imply that all rights, copyright's, re sale rights are given to Bogla. These things would have to explicitly stated and agreed upon, or else the owner, which would be Quid and whoever helped him develop the code, still has these rights, or owns the intellectual property.

He is the author but the exclusive rights to use it are transferred to Bogla as per their contract.

 

but the exclusive rights to use it are transferred to Bogla as per their contract.

that would be the "call my own" part?

 

that would be the "call my own" part?

Combined with the fact he was contracting a work for hire and combined with the context that he already owned a website which was a copy of another website and the developer was aware of this and was offering to create something new to Bogla's specifications.

The gestalt of the contract was an exclusive work for hire agreement

 

[Im Solo]

I lied. I will make one more post. If the entire basis of your argument rests on the fact that you and @malakadang agreed that's a joke. I get it malakadang is what a law STUDENT (if I was properly informed) that means he most likely doesn't have any actual experience in drafting contracts. As much as he may know or yourself do either of you have any experience in drafting real contracts that are legally binding, that have in fact held up in court. If so feel free to call me a dumb ass. But as you tried to say it is not evident that they agreed that Bogla would be given all rights to the code. The word code was never even exchanged. If malakadang would like a lesson in contracting I suppose I could change my mind and offer it for free, because as someone that pursues the profession of law he should be correctly informed. I know no matter what a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT says nothing will change. You've made up your mind. But as I said before the community should understand that this case was improperly handled and decided lacking any proof at all. I know this will probably effect my chances at gaining any type of staff on the forum. But understand when someone is wrong on a subject THAT I ACTUALLY KNOW AS A TRADE I'm going to correct them. Disagreeing with rich is probably a death sentence but it's my duty to be unbiased when others can't. Probably fucked for this but YOLO!

 

I lied. I will make one more post. If the entire basis of your argument rests on the fact that you and @malakadang agreed that's a joke. I get it malakadang is what a law STUDENT (if I was properly informed) that means he most likely doesn't have any actual experience in drafting contracts. As much as he may know or yourself do either of you have any experience in drafting real contracts that are legally binding, that have in fact held up in court. If so feel free to call me a dumb ass. But as you tried to say it is not evident that they agreed that Bogla would be given all rights to the code. The word code was never even exchanged. If malakadang would like a lesson in contracting I suppose I could change my mind and offer it for free, because as someone that pursues the profession of law he should be correctly informed. I know no matter what a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT says nothing will change. You've made up your mind. But as I said before the community should understand that this case was improperly handled and decided lacking any proof at all. I know this will probably effect my chances at gaining any type of staff on the forum. But understand when someone is wrong on a subject THAT I ACTUALLY KNOW AS A TRADE I'm going to correct them. Disagreeing with rich is probably a death sentence but it's my duty to be unbiased when others can't. Probably fucked for this but YOLO!

You're drunk. When you sober up feel free to submit your considered objection to the ruling and I and malakadang will review it.

 

[John Devola]

Going back to the "My Own" discussion, as this is really what this is about.

Gyazo - 0cd899f06a528a0a8d8dcc7f7c38e68b.jpg
But I need a website I can call my own. This means one of four things

• I own the website
• The design is unique to me
• The features are unique to me (close to design)
• The code is unique to me & I have ownership of it (or at least exclusive use)

----------

• The first is redundant (Bogla already owned the site)
• GFX is unique to Bogla, but he was going to pay someone else to do it
• I see no unique features that Bogla requested, perhaps he did but I dont see
• We are forced to assume this is what we meant.

Sure, in the eyes of the beholder this case looks differently to everyone. But I believe @Sythe and @malakadang made this determination as to what he meant by "my own". With absence of a formal contract I see no other way to determine this case. There is no way to rightly understand what Bogla meant at the time, so we are forced to try to extrapolate what he meant and what the contract was.

 

[malakadang]

What exactly do you guys want explored further?

I would like to reiterate that I thought this case turned on what 'Call it my own' meant. If you guys think a turn was missed, let us know (I can see some issues raised above, but I don't know what has been resolved and what hasn't been). Additionally, I thought that it could have gone either way, but I erred on the side of an exclusive license based on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the context they were used in. If anyone would like to post their interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the words used in the context they were used in, feel free.

When a term in the contract is being charged with uncertainty, judges will literally quote a dictionary in an attempt to define what the actual words used mean. This is also why some contracts have a definition section.

@Im Solo I just want to ask you one question: do you think Bogla obtained a non-exclusive license to use the website?

 

With absence of a formal contract I see no other way to determine this case. There is no way to rightly understand what Bogla meant at the time, so we are forced to try to extrapolate what he meant and what the contract was.

Isn't this where Contra proferentem comes into play, and why it was brought up in the first place. Malakadang just said it would be referred to as a last resort which it seems we are at if we just have to guess what Bogla meant, he doesn't know either.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

17 U.S. Code § 201 - Ownership of copyright
See (b)

The meaning of "my own" is irrelevant assuming this is applicable. Ownership goes to Bogla by default unless otherwise stated.

I was rooting for IHQ too but I think they came to the right conclusion